To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Cannery waste treatment. I. In-plant characterization

page 44

Cannery Waste Treatment.
1. In-Plant Characterization
R. G. SPICHER, Professor
F. J. AGARDY, Professor
San Jose State College
San Jose, California
G. T. ORLOB, President
Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
Lafayette, California
INTRODUCTION
The food processing industries, so important to the California economy, have
been faced with the realization that both water supply and waste disposal are
limiting factors in growth, operation, and product cost. Water saving techniques
have, in many cases, permitted increases in plant capacity without additional
burden on fixed resources. They have been responsible in other instances for
significant savings in total production expense.
Yet, while there have been advantages to the industry in water conservation,
there have been concomitant changes in waste quantity and character. With increased production the total organic waste load has inexorably risen and the problems attendant to disposal have become increasingly difficult to solve. Process
advances have produced some new waste constituents and water economies have
resulted in concentration of waste loads in certain process streams.
Faced with a general expansion in the potential waste load which must be
treated or transferred to receiving waters, regulatory authorities have been forced
to tighten controls and to stimulate industry's critical examination of its contribution to the pollution problem. Municipalities which must, in many instances, receive the wastes of their allied industries have been assuming responsibility for
augmenting treatment capacity. Accordingly they have transferred costs of expanded facilities and operation to industry through imposition of service charges.
The seasonal character of wastes from the food processing industries and their
relatively high proportion compared to domestic contributions in some municipal
systems suggests that it might be more economical to treat the separate components rather than the combined flows. Such has been the hope of municipal agencies but little substantial progress has been made in this direction, most municipalities reluctantly accepting their lot. Industries, on the other hand continually
seeking ways to reduce costs but becoming increasingly aware of their responsibilities in pollution control, have begun to explore the economic feasibility of "in-
plant" modifications to reduce waste and "on-site" facilities to provide treatment. The question of economic feasibility is beginning to focus on comparison
of the two principal alternatives: to sustain some part of the cost of waste treatment at the food processing plant, or to shift the entire burden to the municipality
and to pay for the service rendered. A corollary question of much broader implication is: "Which of these alternatives will, in fact, result in the most effective
control of receiving water quality?' *
Despite an awareness by regulatory agencies, municipalities and industry of
- 44 -

Cannery Waste Treatment.
1. In-Plant Characterization
R. G. SPICHER, Professor
F. J. AGARDY, Professor
San Jose State College
San Jose, California
G. T. ORLOB, President
Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
Lafayette, California
INTRODUCTION
The food processing industries, so important to the California economy, have
been faced with the realization that both water supply and waste disposal are
limiting factors in growth, operation, and product cost. Water saving techniques
have, in many cases, permitted increases in plant capacity without additional
burden on fixed resources. They have been responsible in other instances for
significant savings in total production expense.
Yet, while there have been advantages to the industry in water conservation,
there have been concomitant changes in waste quantity and character. With increased production the total organic waste load has inexorably risen and the problems attendant to disposal have become increasingly difficult to solve. Process
advances have produced some new waste constituents and water economies have
resulted in concentration of waste loads in certain process streams.
Faced with a general expansion in the potential waste load which must be
treated or transferred to receiving waters, regulatory authorities have been forced
to tighten controls and to stimulate industry's critical examination of its contribution to the pollution problem. Municipalities which must, in many instances, receive the wastes of their allied industries have been assuming responsibility for
augmenting treatment capacity. Accordingly they have transferred costs of expanded facilities and operation to industry through imposition of service charges.
The seasonal character of wastes from the food processing industries and their
relatively high proportion compared to domestic contributions in some municipal
systems suggests that it might be more economical to treat the separate components rather than the combined flows. Such has been the hope of municipal agencies but little substantial progress has been made in this direction, most municipalities reluctantly accepting their lot. Industries, on the other hand continually
seeking ways to reduce costs but becoming increasingly aware of their responsibilities in pollution control, have begun to explore the economic feasibility of "in-
plant" modifications to reduce waste and "on-site" facilities to provide treatment. The question of economic feasibility is beginning to focus on comparison
of the two principal alternatives: to sustain some part of the cost of waste treatment at the food processing plant, or to shift the entire burden to the municipality
and to pay for the service rendered. A corollary question of much broader implication is: "Which of these alternatives will, in fact, result in the most effective
control of receiving water quality?' *
Despite an awareness by regulatory agencies, municipalities and industry of
- 44 -